27 ms·

I got my driver's license in Sweden, and the official driving handbook completely worships manual transmissions, and makes several untrue claims about how much

I got my driver's license in Sweden, and the official driving handbook completely worships manual transmissions, and makes several untrue claims about how much better they are than automatics. You can choose to do your road test in an automatic, but that'll earn you a restriction on your license, barring you from driving a manual. It's probably fair, but almost everyone (myself included) chooses to practice in manuals, and do the test in a manual to not have that restriction, which further skews the stats in favor of manuals. An obligatory part of the road test is so called "eco-driving", where you have to demonstrate your ability to drive efficiently, and one way of doing that is to skip a gear when shifting in certain situtations. It's absolutely insane to force people to learn this, when automatic transmissions are consistently outperforming humans at fuel efficiency. If the traffic authorities really cared about fuel efficiency, they should instead sing the praises of automatic transmissions, but they don't, because they have an irrational love of manuals. And the final kicker: Road tests are done in official traffic authority cars with double controls, and I did mine in a nice, modern, manual VW Golf, that had a gear-shift indicator in the dash. And since the car is most often better than you at knowing when you should shift gears, why have the manual transmission in the first place? It's a complete farce. The silver lining is that electric cars will just decide this issue once and for all.

rimantas 10y ago
> when automatic transmissions are consistently > outperforming humans at fuel efficiency What? So far each data sheet has shown higher fuel consumption for automatic vehicles.
- trynumber9 10y ago
  DCTs are typically 3–5% more fuel-efficient than manual transmissions.
  - pedrocr 10y ago
    That's to be expected as a dual-clutch transmission is a robotically operated manual transmission with an extra degree of freedom. Most automatics are completely different technology that has always been less efficient.
- silon7 10y ago
  It's only correct for modern automatic transmissions. Plus sometimes start/stop. Probably not for old "3 gear with torque converter" or similiar.
  - Reason077 10y ago
    Modern manual cars have start/stop technology too. However, it's more convoluted to use. You have to engage the clutch, put the shifter in neutral, and release the clutch again. Compared to automatic where you just have to hold your foot on the brake pedal. Stop/start reduces fuel consumption on test cycles like NEDC for both automatics and manuals, but I'll bet in the real world the benefit is mostly seen with automatics as many manual drivers will rarely bother to use it.
    - kifki 10y ago
      Manual car with start&stop owner here; I always use it when driving in the city, so do all of my friends. It's just slightly uncomfortable the first times, when you have to train your muscle memory.
    - edoloughlin 10y ago
      However, it's more convoluted to use. You have to engage the clutch, put the shifter in neutral, and release the clutch again This is how you should drive if you know you're going to be stopped for more than a few seconds. 'Convoluted' doesn't come into it - it's the default.
      - dogma1138 10y ago
        I want to see the people who cycle the clutch twice at a red signal.
        Ntrails 10y ago
        When stopped you have two options in a car, sitting with your foot on the clutch (which is flat out bad) and putting the car in neutral. Putting the car in neutral is basically one meaningful action - changing gear, yes you have to depress the clutch move the gearstick to neutral and then let the clutch go - but to describe that as "cycle the clutch twice" is madness. Am I missing something?
- henrikschroder 10y ago
  I should probably have qualified my statement with an "over time, in real driving conditions". In a measured test, with a skilled driver, who does the right thing for the entirety of the test, it is most likely that he or she will be more efficient with a manual transmission than with an automatic. However, in real life, for real humans, over a longer period of time, the drivers with modern automatic transmissions will be more fuel efficient than drivers with similar cars and manual transmissions, because the automatic transmission is a reliable machine that will do the same thing, every time. It doesn't care if you had your morning coffee or not, if some asshole cut you off, or if you got distracted or bored or spaced out and forgot to change your gear to the right one. And, disregarding the disruption the EVs will be, technology constantly improves, while human skill is fairly constant, so it was just inevitable that automatic transmissions would one day overtake manual transmissions in terms of speed and efficiency. Arguing otherwise is just irrational nostalgia.
  - deleted 10y ago
    [deleted]
  - kalleboo 10y ago
    I'd love to see some kind of study that went deep into how the results pan out over a certain population and why. My own anecdote is that I'm a better driver in a manual. I'm a lazy driver, and lazy in a manual means avoiding stopping/gear changes by anticipating green lights and so on. Being lazy in an automatic results in more stop and go for me because it's no more effort. I could be as efficient in an automatic, if I put in the effort (which I would probably do if I knew my numbers were going into a study).
    - henrikschroder 10y ago
      Many modern cars are completely drive-by-wire, and have a mode selector inbetween your controls and the car, which forces you into more fuel-efficient driving, e.g. ignoring if you push the speeder all the way down, and accelerating the car at an efficient pace instead. The more sensors and processing you get in a car, the better the car can be a this. Other modern cars have an "eco display" or similar, which gamifies the experience. My previous car had some progress bars for different aspects, and I spent several boring commutes trying to get to a perfect 100%. (I did it once, I was so happy! Usually only got it to 98% before I hit the city and got stuck in traffic again) Making automatics more efficient is a technological optimization problem. Making manuals more efficient is a human skill problem. I know which side I'd bet on in the long run. (Hint: Not the human)
- Tomte 10y ago
  Sure, for professional racing drivers. The vast majority, certainly >90%, of people who claim to be driving more efficiently manually are simply mistaken. It's mostly observation bias. They recognize those two situations a day where they really have the upper hand. For a second or two. They don't realize that in most other driving situations they don't even come close.
  - amelius 10y ago
    > Sure, for professional racing drivers. But note that the transmission in F1 cars is semi-automatic [1] [1] https://www.formula1.com/en/championship/inside-f1/understanding-f1-racing/power-unit---gearbox.html https://www.formula1.com/en/championship/inside-f1/understan...
    - userbinator 10y ago
      The only "automatic" part of that transmission is the clutch. The driver still has to select the gear, and I think that's what the whole discussion here about manual vs. automatic is focusing on.
      - monk_e_boy 10y ago
        They drive to the beeps, so the computer is beeping in their ear when it is time to change. And they don't shift through neutral to select a gear. They may as well be automatic for all the input an F1 driver has
        rlau26 10y ago
        The computer beeping is merely a reminder and I'm betting most drivers will even disregard it after they are familiar with the track they are on. Gear changes happen so often and so quickly that waiting for a computer to tell you when to shift is a sure sign of unfamiliarity with the track layout and it's also a hit to one's concentration (ex. if they're trying to pass the car ahead or block the one behind). Anyone that does any sort of track driving consistently should know what gear their car should be in for each corner long before a race.
- vmasto 10y ago
  Source please?
- kyrra 10y ago
  False. Maybe that used to be true, but it's been shifting. Automatics are more efficient than manuals. Examples: https://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/PowerSearch.do?action=noform&path=7&year=2016&make=Honda&model=Accord&srchtyp=ymm https://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/PowerSearch.do?action=noform... https://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/bymodel/2016_Mazda_6.shtml https://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/bymodel/2016_Mazda_6.shtml
fh973 10y ago
Eco driving is also about driving with foresight: don't accelerate if you likely have to stop soon anyway. Braking wastes the most gas.
- csydas 10y ago
  Yah, this can make an overwhelming difference in the long run. I used to drive semi-regularly between Wisconsin and Minnesota, a stretch of about 280 miles; others in my family would make the same trip with the same car during the same times of year, and my mileage per tank was always significantly different, and we couldn't figure out why initially. Turns out they used cruise control for most of the stretch, which I never used, and it was often the difference of 3-5 gallons over the course of the trip. Not a huge deal, but $4 gas did influence it a bit.
  - kitd 10y ago
    For clarity, did cruise control produce better or worse mpg figures?
    - csydas 10y ago
      Ah, yeah, I see how what I wrote was not clear. Cruise control was significantly worse than driving it normally, at least when I was at the wheel. The route is a very hilly one, so I somewhat suspect it's that the cruise control was not very good at knowing when to accelerate and when to coast.
      - jessaustin 10y ago
        I find that the cruise control on a 2015 Hyundai (automatic transmission) always gets better mileage than I can without, even on hilly trips. (Where I live all trips are hilly.) I do help it out by shifting to neutral when on long downhill stretches.
      - omegaham 10y ago
        It's definitely that. My 2007 Civic doesn't account for incline when doing cruise control. It has some sort of lookup table that says, "When the owner sets me to 65 miles per hour, I go at this RPM." If I keep slowing down because I'm on a hill, it downshifts a gear and accelerates hard until the car goes back up to 65 miles per hour. Wash, rinse, repeat. I always disabled cruise control on hills because of it. My fiancee's 2014 Nissan Rogue accounts for hills with cruise control, and it never has these intervals.
lb1lf 10y ago
In Norway, too, we have the same restriction. I think I've driven a manual transmission car once or perhaps twice since my driver's test. As for eco-driving, I was told in no uncertain terms by the guy who examined me that if I tried to drive as eco-friendly as the official course material suggested, he'd fail me for being a hazard to other traffic.
- _nalply 10y ago
  That's because you'll prefer to run over pedestrians crossing the street so you don't have to break and waste kinetic energy. </irony>
  - lb1lf 10y ago
    -That only works for children; adults have too large a moment of inertia for this technique to be effective. Seriously, his (valid, IMHO) point was that driving eco-friendly was all well and good when conditions allowed (A distinction not being made by the training manual) - but when interacting with other drivers, accelerating slowly, for instance, would often mean you could never (legally) enter a road where you're required to yield. The Norwegian definition of yield being that you should in no way impede on the operation of the car with right of way - in theory, if you're entering a road with right-of-way and a driver already on it has to ease up on the throttle pedal even for an instance to maintain safe distance, you're breaking the law.)
    - _nalply 10y ago
      Interesting. I'll have too look up what the Swiss road law says about this.
      - _nalply 10y ago
        I looked up. Art. 36 para. 4 SVG says: «The driver [...] is not allowed to impede other users of the road [...]», however I don't know what «impede» does exactly mean. Since I often experience that I have to adapt my speed because someone entered the road rather tightly, I think the Swiss are more lax about this. You only «impede» if the other one really has to hit the brake. Maybe. https://www.admin.ch/opc/de/classified-compilation/19580266/index.html https://www.admin.ch/opc/de/classified-compilation/19580266/... (German)
vmarsy 10y ago
>when automatic transmissions are consistently outperforming humans at fuel efficiency Do you have data to back this up? Unless you're driving a dual clutch "dry" transmission or a CVT, because of Physics, an automatic transmission will always be less efficient. The Automatic transmission Torque converter [1] will waste some of the energy provided by the engine, especially with city driving. Also, most automatic cars tend to shift gear up too early, and can't switch to gear n+2. Because of this, you spend more time accelerating to your cruise speed. It's well known that accelerating rather quickly to your cruise speed is the optimal strategy for fuel efficiency, hence the reason to switch from 3rd to 5th gear directly. With a manual, you can also disengage the clutch when you consider it safe (and not slowing down traffic) and you know you're going to have to stop at the red light. [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z5G2zQ_3xTc https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z5G2zQ_3xTc
- sshanky 10y ago
  In modern cars, disengaging the clutch (or using neutral) when coasting (toward a stop or down a hill) is less efficient than staying in gear. This is because it takes some fuel to keep the engine idling, where staying in gear allows the computer to completely cut fuel flow, as long as the forward motion is keeping the engine turning.
  - baq 10y ago
    can confirm with anecdata: in my car the computer reports 0.0 fuel consumption when coasting in gear but non-zero when in neutral/clutch depressed.
    - ldev 10y ago
      Simple understanding on how a car works - "wheels turn the engine" when in gear, otherwise fuel is consumed when in neutral..
      - justin66 10y ago
        Not so simple. Until recently, a standard ICE couldn't stop injecting fuel while coasting (unless you turned the car off, which brings other problems...). I remember when I was learning to drive being taught about engine braking (with an automatic) and the tradeoff between using up the brakes or burning fuel.
fazzone 10y ago
>gear-shift indicator in the dash. My VW has this. It's useless, I never look at it. It is very simple and clearly intended only to give the best results on the controlled gas mileage testing - I believe that if a manual car has a gear-change indicator, the EPA test drivers are supposed to follow it. The advantage of a human selecting gears is that they can use more information than just the speed and engine rpm; for instance there is no point shifting into 6th gear if you see a big hill right in front of you. It also never indicates for the driver to skip a gear. Maybe you will save a few bucks on gas if you follow the indicator religiously but you'll probably break even after you have to replace your clutch early.
- Tempest1981 10y ago
  You say it's useless, but then say "maybe you will save a few bucks on gas if you follow the indicator". Isn't that the point? To teach/remind you how to save gas? I agree that it is imperfect, and imo annoying/distracting. But it may work for a large number of drivers, most of the time.
  - fazzone 10y ago
    My point is that they far over-prioritized fuel economy. If you actually drive like that you will be spending a lot more time changing gears than necessary, and that almost any acceleration will require a downshift. I wouldn't recommend trying to stretch the gas mileage in the snow, for example, since you might need power to recover if you start to slide.
    - blub 10y ago
      Completely agree. Those indicators ignore that we can't accelerate as fast as a double-clutch automatic in case of emergency.
    - rini17 10y ago
      Overusing clutch is not such a big problem, but that it leads the driver to keep low rpm. Especially diesel engine is sensitive to that and can be damaged.
denisd 10y ago
> The silver lining is that electric cars will just decide this issue once and for all. They won't decide the issue as they have no transmission, they are option number 3 so to speak.
- oblio 10y ago
  That was probably his point :)
- tempestn 10y ago
  The issue will still be decided, in that it will no longer be an issue.
Annatar 10y ago
And since the car is most often better than you at knowing when you should shift gears, why have the manual transmission in the first place? From my empirical experiments, and from understanding how modern automatic transmissions work, the assertion above is incorrect, and here is why: a modern automatic transmission is controlled by firmware, a unikernel. The shift points and the shifting logic are based on the developers' very dim understanding of economy and of performance driving, and because the firmware is so shitty, there is often a significant latency involved - by the time the unikernel has managed to process all the inputs from all the sensors, compute a decision and acutally shift the gear, I've long since shifted with a manual. On top of that, the developers' opinions of what's acceptable and what makes sense are truly dim and utterly infuriating: as I drove the manumatic in hypermiling mode in which I normally drive a stick, the idiotic unikernel refused to upshift because the programmer thought that the gear would be too high and the RPM's too low, neither of which was the case. This was a 3 liter V6, so with plenty of low-end torque for the situation I was putting it through. Incensed, I repeated my experiment on other makes and models: the result was always the same. After so many years of automatic frustrations, I will never again own one: the day when I'm no longer able to buy a vehicle with a manual transmission is the day I take a bicycle or walk with the two legs nature gave me, or engineer my own car, and the car manufacturers can go to hell, because they sure won't be seeing any of my money ever again.
- eveningcoffee 10y ago
  Yeah, downvoted for honest and informed opinion. Unfortunately this is quite common in HN.
  - viraptor 10y ago
    I downvoted you for random assumptions and insulting people you never talked to. > a modern automatic transmission is controlled by firmware, a unikernel Have you seen the source? If not, how do you know it's a unikernel? > The shift points and the shifting logic are based on the developers' very dim understanding of economy and of performance driving "dim understanding"? Do you have a reference for any of that? Why do you think it's developers, not mechanical engineers or engine testing that resulted in the shift threshold? > there is often a significant latency involved - by the time the unikernel has managed to process all the inputs from all the sensors Again, that's a heavy assumption unless you have a source for it. Also, from own experience in actually writing control software like that, real world sensors can be read tens/hundreds+ of times per second. But even with tiny 8K microprocessors you can process it more quickly. Mostly you sit in a tight loop and wait for new data. Processing it takes tiny fraction of the wait time. > On top of that, the developers' opinions of what's acceptable and what makes sense are truly dim and utterly infuriating Yeah... you're just throwing ad-hominem around. Please come post some sources which support your opinions.
VMG 10y ago
Very similar situation in Germany. I think the misinformation could be an historical artifact from times when automatic transmission technology was in early stages.
- skrause 10y ago
  I don't think there is a lot of misinformation in Germany. I'm German and I simply buy manual transmissions because they are a lot cheaper and I know a lot of people who are they same. I really would prefer an automatic transmission, but spend an extra 2000 euros for that bit of extra comfort? No thanks.
  - VMG 10y ago
    I was referring to the misinformation about higher fuel efficiency of manual compared to automatic. I heard it too in driving school.
    - Swizec 10y ago
      The real question is: Will it save more money in gas than it costs extra to buy?
      - VMG 10y ago
        The rabbit hole goes deeper: how do you price in externalities like pollution for fuel? Or for an automatic transmission?
      - VMG 10y ago
        The rabbit hole goes deeper: how do you price in externalities like pollution for fuel? Or for an automatic transmission?
sandos 10y ago
Also, recently even in Sweden we passed the point when more than 50% of all new cars have an automatic gearbox! Manual gearboxes are not here to stay. Next car I'm getting, which is soon, is going to be an automatic if my plans turn out well. For some car models its very hard to find manual gearboxes, for example Kia Sorento manual is unusual. I assume its the more expensive car, the less likely it is to have a manual tranmission.
ehnto 10y ago
Automatics tend to be less fuel efficient, especially older cars. More recently, CVT style transmissions have been able to be more reasonable. But a typical automatic use much less direct ways to transfer the power, than a simple gear to gear linkage.
krzyk 10y ago
> when automatic transmissions are consistently outperforming humans at fuel efficiency Take a look at official car manufactures tables, in most cases automatic is less fuel efficient, cars where it is more efficient (at least according to the manufactures) are not as common.
eveningcoffee 10y ago
Restricted B category licence in Europe allows you to drive only cars with automatic gear transmissions. If you want to drive only such cars then you are not obliged to do full licence. But manual transmission cars are considerably cheaper and are more likely to be available (previously in the family, rental, friend etc), so it is your choice. Nobody is forcing you to do that. Automatic gear suggester makes the suggestions based on the revolutions and if you know what you are doing (takes a little practice and understanding), is always late. Manual transmission gives you more control over revolutions. This could also mean more fun driving. You can also use your engine for slowing down etc. The same could be done with robotic transmission, but that is usually more expensive to have and you do not get to control the clutch release. Besides, you gain better motor control of your body as a bonus.
- eveningcoffee 10y ago
  For the record: I do not think that drivers who prefer automatic gear box are somehow inferiour, everyone has its preferences. Just driving with the manual gear box car requires very specific additional skills and consensus in Europe is that these skills must be officially validated.
alkonaut 10y ago
Automatics used to drink 10% more until very recently. It's not strange that this is still taught. Even to this day it's probably hard to beat a good manual driver for eco perf, but perhaps average drivers do at least as well with a modern automatic.
akerro 10y ago
>that'll earn you a restriction on your license, barring you from driving a manual. It's probably fair, but almost everyone (myself included) chooses to practice in manuals It is fair. When you do motorcycle training for up-to 125cc, you can take a scooter which doesn't have gears, or motorcycle with gear. If you learn how to use gears you know how to ride a scooter, but if you take a scooter, you're not allowed to ride a motorcycle with gears. It's 100% fair, and it's logical.
- ealexhudson 10y ago
  This is only partly true. While it's correct for the A1 license (up to 125cc), if you have provisional + CBT you can do that training on an automatic bike and then go out and ride a geared bike for as long as you renew the CBT. Personally, I think it's a silly restriction. I learned gears on my own, if you know how to ride a bike it's not complicated to pick up - even in the CBT training they expect learners to pick it up in a half hour or so.
  - peteretep 10y ago
    Very much worth noting that the CBT is a UK-only thing, and meaningless outside the UK.
    - akerro 10y ago
      Some EU countries don't require CBT-equivalent training to ride 125cc
- barrkel 10y ago
  In the UK at least, CBT is not geared vs automatic specific. If you do your basic training on a scooter, you can still ride a geared 125 unaccompanied on the road. The full test is specific though. The bigger issue with scooters vs geared bikes isn't the extra effort of using the gears, it's the much higher centre of gravity and (usually) wider turning circle of geared bikes that complicates manoeuvres. More forward planning is required to avoid tight turns that require high bank angle at low speed, turns that are easy on a scooter. The higher centre of gravity means it's trivial to drop the bike if braking while turning at slow speed. It's easy to hold up a scooter in the same situation.
cannam 10y ago
My driving instructor (in the UK) came from Sweden. He thought automatics were much safer and reckoned everyone should drive one, especially in the city, but he didn't like teaching them because they were so boring.
- ollie87 10y ago
  I'm in the UK and if I lived in a bigger city I'd have an auto, but since I live just outside a small city I keep my manual because I like the feeling of driving. For me driving and automatic is just not as fun.
ldev 10y ago
Same here in Lithuania - everyone learns and takes exams with manual transmission or they won't be legally allowed to drive stick. Same with "eco" driving - staying in higher RPMs or downshifting to overtake a car is a no no. But after passing driver's exam most people buy automatic - it's just so much more convenient in the city. I would rage in traffic if I had to do "clutch, neutral, cluth, first gear" mantra for 20 minutes to move a little in traffic - releasing break pedal to crawl a bit and then pressing it again to stop is a god send after driving manual for 6 years. :) Manual is good for 300+ bhp weekend cars, not daily use cars.
- kazga 10y ago
  downshifting to overtake a car is a no no. Interesting. German driving schools actually explicitly tell you to downshift before overtaking so that your acceleration is higher and you spend less time in the "wrong" lane.
saiya-jin 10y ago
wow, you are incorrect in almost every statement. I get it, you like easy driving without worrying about clutch and gears, but not everybody is like that. I would never want automatic transmission for my car, it's inferior, expensive, less fun and car has no way knowing details of road situation I am facing and choices I am about to make. And I am far from petrolhead person FYI. Another point - I don't know a single person who has automatic gearbox in their car, not even soccer moms. Automatic gearbox is faster, and probably better for complete novice drivers so they can focus more on situation on the road. That's it. It is more costly, will wear engine faster, removes some connection between driver and car (includes fun of driving, but not only). Plus it creates desperate and sometimes dangerous drivers when they sit in a car with manual, which will almost inevitably happen.
- peteretep 10y ago
  > it's inferior, expensive, less > fun and car has no way knowing > details of road situation I agree, and have believed those things since my mother (literally) taught me them! But I've never driven an automatic, and the small number of people I know in the UK who have switched to an automatic are never, ever going back. Food for thought.
  - julian55 10y ago
    I'm one of that small number in the UK who drives an automatic. I used to drive a manual but more than 10 years ago switched to an automatic and I wouldn't want to switch back. To me driving is about getting from A to B with the least hassle and an automatic helps with that.
  - eric_the_read 10y ago
    I just switched because I simply couldn't get the vehicle I needed (2016 Toyota Tacoma, 4 doors, 6' bed) with a manual transmission. I love the truck, but I still wish I could have had it with a manual. When my girls are old enough to drive, I hope I can still find a manual that's safe for them to learn on, just so they'll know what to do if they ever need to use one.
- 10y ago
hrrsn 10y ago
>You can choose to do your road test in an automatic, but that'll earn you a restriction on your license, barring you from driving a manual. Interesting. Here in New Zealand, once you move from your learners license (fully supervised driving) to restricted (ability to drive by yourself with conditions), if you sit the test in an automatic you get a condition for automatic only on your license. Once you sit your full license in an auto, that restriction disappears.
hrrsn 10y ago
>You can choose to do your road test in an automatic, but that'll earn you a restriction on your license, barring you from driving a manual. Interesting. Here in New Zealand, once you move from your learners license (fully supervised driving) to restricted (ability to drive by yourself with conditions), if you sit the test in an automatic you get a condition for automatic only on your license. Once you sit your full license in an auto, that restriction disappears.
hrrsn 10y ago
>You can choose to do your road test in an automatic, but that'll earn you a restriction on your license, barring you from driving a manual. Interesting. Here in New Zealand, once you move from your learners license (fully supervised driving) to restricted (ability to drive by yourself with conditions), if you sit the test in an automatic you get a condition for automatic only on your license. Once you sit your full license in an auto, that restriction disappears.
mcv 10y ago
It's similar in Netherland. Manual transmission is standard, and automatic slightly looked down upon. But hybrids have to be automatic, so even a hardened driver like my wife had to accept automatic transmission. I always sucked at working the clutch, so automatic is probably better for me anyway.
blub 10y ago
When would skipping a gear be more "eco"? I find the shift indicator annoying. Depending on the car (e.g. my diesel 1.6L), it will probably be unreliable. One example is suggesting to shift up when driving on a light ramp when going over 2000rpm - this might be more eco, but it will put strain on the engine and also decrease your reaction time if you need to accelerate. The only useful thing that the indicator does convey is to keep it between ~1200 - 2000rpm and don't go over 130km/h if you want to save fuel. Interestingly my car model has the best fuel efficiency available only on manual, the same engine automatic uses slightly more fuel. But an automatic is generally safer (instant reaction time) and less troublesome (can't choke the engine). I don't think one has any chance of doing things like controlled drifts with an automatic.
rsp1984 10y ago
An often lost fact in automatic vs. stick-shift discussions is that in practice automatic transmission causes much heavier wear on the brakes of the car. This is because with a stick-shift you can just gear down when going downhill or before a foreseen stop and let the engine do most of the breaking for you. You then only use the brakes to bring the car to a full-stop on the last couple meters. This gets you much better mileage on your brake disks and pads. Can't do that with an automatic. Plus it's more fuel efficient.
- cjrp 10y ago
  I use engine braking in this way, but I've often wondered how much additional wear this is putting on the clutch. Given that brake pads/discs are cheap, and a clutch is not, maybe in the long run this doesn't actually work out cheaper?
  - rhinoceraptor 10y ago
    If you rev match properly, the down shift should be just as smooth and quick as a normal up shift. E.G. you're in fourth gear at 50 MPH, you engage the clutch pedal, shift to third, tap the gas, and release the clutch pedal.
  - dghughes 10y ago
    I'd be more worried about wear of the valve train. Brake pads are cheaper.
- henrikschroder 10y ago
  My previous car automatically engaged engine-breaking when going downhill, when it was appropriate to do so. I also had paddle-shifters if I wanted to do it myself. Your statement that cars with automatic transmissions can't engine brake is wrong.
- joncalhoun 10y ago
  Some new cars (and likely some older ones) offer paddle shifters and other ways to kinda pretend to be a manual. Eg most Subarus have this now. As someone who preferred cars with a manual transmission until recently, the paddle shifters are useless when accelerating (they just don't work well, and rarely feel "smooth"), but I really appreciate them for engine braking in the snow. I wonder if you could get similar brake-saving results if you got accustomed to switching to manual mode when braking and then switching back to drive regularly.
glenndebacker 10y ago
Here in Belgium the majority are the ones with a manual transmissions. The resell value of a car with an automatic shifter is also a lot less than the version with the manual shifter. But the car market is also changing. We are (regarding cars) a diesel country but as the government want to promote (as they are less polluting) petrol and electric cars, the taxes are becoming a lot higher for those who want to drive with diesel. If I'm not mistaken (not a car enthousiast) diesel cars with automatic shifters are rare. So when diesel is out, it may also change in this department.
- bluetomcat 10y ago
  > If I'm not mistaken (not a car enthousiast) diesel cars with automatic shifters are rare. Pretty much any European diesel executive car (Mercedes E-class, Audi A6, BMW 5 Series) is equipped with an automatic.
ebbv 10y ago
Manuals are better for fuel economy because they are more efficient. A torque converter loses more power as part of its design, it is unavoidable. Manual transmissions are also typically lighter which also results in an efficiency gain. If you prefer an auto that's fine, you're in a huge majority. But the idea that they are more efficient than manuals is factually wrong. If you run across an individual model of car where the EPA estimates give an advantage to the auto that is because of gearing and nothing else. That tells you the manual transmission was given much more aggressive or "sporty" gearing, probably starting with the final drive ratio. But that's a rare situation.
johngalt 10y ago
Governments standards change slower than technology. Automatics used to be slush boxes that robbed power while shifting at inappropriate times. Now they aren't. I love manuals, but I have to acknowledge modern automatic transmissions are very well executed.
Johnny_Brahms 10y ago
The driving schools are a huge lobby group in the laws regarding getting your drivers license. After I got my license, they successfully lobbied for a mandatory lesson for instructors (not too expensive, but still not a small income). Learning stick shift is harder, and takes a lot more practice. There is probably some economic interest in having people learn to drive stick. The only AT cars that I know have better fuel economy than good manual drivers are cars with CVT (continuously variable transmission). They are expensive and not something I would fix myself though :)
Grishnakh 10y ago
The love of manual transmissions isn't irrational, it's merely outdated. Manual transmissions were indeed more efficient than automatics up until about 10 years ago. Governments aren't exactly famous for being completely up-to-date on everything. The driving handbook you're complaining about was probably written 30 years ago... Back then, automatics really did suck badly. With modern cars, automatics do get better fuel economy than manuals according to all the official fuel-economy tests I've seen. One big difference between the two that I've noticed is that in automatics, they tend to have taller gearing overall, and cruise at lower rpms (because of a taller final gear). This is most likely because it's so fast and easy for an automatic to downshift when it needs to, unlike a stick; this is especially important when using cruise control on the highway. The main problem with automatics (but not DSGs like VWs have) is the inefficiency of the torque converter. But modern automatics have worked around that really well with TCs that lock up and unlock very readily, so they're really not much different than a manual with its slipping clutch. Luckily, here in the US, for all the things we do wrong with cars and drivers' licenses, there's no automatic restrictions I've ever heard about. I've heard of some states having such a thing on their licenses, but in reality I've never heard of them actually sticking that on someone's license if they took the driving test in an automatic. Almost anyone is allowed to jump in and drive a stick any time they want.
- henrikschroder 10y ago
  > The driving handbook you're complaining about was probably written 30 years ago No, it's continually updated, and featured lots of other modern facts about cars. For example, from a safety perspective, it urged people to stay the fuck away (maybe not using those words) from cars manufactured before 2000, because safety ratings increased a lot between 1990 and 2000, across the whole board. The eco-driving requirements are 10 years old, at the most, but the manual still states facts about automatic transmissions that were true 30 years ago. It's also important to remember that getting a license in European countries is generally a lot harder than in the US, so the eco-driving requirements results in people having to spend time learning the "theory" behind it, spending valuable driving lessons with an instructor to learn it, practice it, and getting evaluated on it during your final road test, and failing to drive "eco-friendly" will result in you failing the test. So it's a big deal, it affects a lot of people, and it's mostly been obsoleted by technology. The gains from forcing people to learn eco-driving are minuscule, and the whole piece of shit could be replaced with one simple sentence: "Please buy a modern car". The last 10-15 years have seen crazy efficiency gains, and buying a new car will do more for the environment than a lifetime of eco-driving in an older one. And that grinds my gears. :-) > Almost anyone is allowed to jump in and drive a stick any time they want. Fortunately that is pretty self-regulating, because it's incredibly hard to drive a manual if you haven't had practice and training. :-)
igfnow 10y ago
Tesla tried to have transmissions with multiple gears in their electric cars... thankfully it didn't work out the way they hoped.
bnolsen 10y ago
If you look at fuelly you may see different numbers. I know that for my last car: honda accord, and my current car: kia soul, manual transmissions both get noticeably better gas mileage even though the MSRP claims otherwise.
JasonInSeattle 10y ago
For me it's simple -- I really enjoy driving a manual and I mildly hate "driving" an automatic. I don't give a shit about fuel economy. Not to be rude but your tone makes it sound like you miss the point completely, which is fine, but it just makes me wonder why you would even care about having that restriction on your license to begin with...

rimantas 10y ago

> when automatic transmissions are consistently > outperforming humans at fuel efficiency What? So far each data sheet has shown higher fuel consumption for automatic vehicles.

trynumber9 10y ago
DCTs are typically 3–5% more fuel-efficient than manual transmissions.
- pedrocr 10y ago
  That's to be expected as a dual-clutch transmission is a robotically operated manual transmission with an extra degree of freedom. Most automatics are completely different technology that has always been less efficient.
silon7 10y ago
It's only correct for modern automatic transmissions. Plus sometimes start/stop. Probably not for old "3 gear with torque converter" or similiar.
- Reason077 10y ago
  Modern manual cars have start/stop technology too. However, it's more convoluted to use. You have to engage the clutch, put the shifter in neutral, and release the clutch again. Compared to automatic where you just have to hold your foot on the brake pedal. Stop/start reduces fuel consumption on test cycles like NEDC for both automatics and manuals, but I'll bet in the real world the benefit is mostly seen with automatics as many manual drivers will rarely bother to use it.
  - kifki 10y ago
    Manual car with start&stop owner here; I always use it when driving in the city, so do all of my friends. It's just slightly uncomfortable the first times, when you have to train your muscle memory.
  - edoloughlin 10y ago
    However, it's more convoluted to use. You have to engage the clutch, put the shifter in neutral, and release the clutch again This is how you should drive if you know you're going to be stopped for more than a few seconds. 'Convoluted' doesn't come into it - it's the default.
    - dogma1138 10y ago
      I want to see the people who cycle the clutch twice at a red signal.
      - Ntrails 10y ago
        When stopped you have two options in a car, sitting with your foot on the clutch (which is flat out bad) and putting the car in neutral. Putting the car in neutral is basically one meaningful action - changing gear, yes you have to depress the clutch move the gearstick to neutral and then let the clutch go - but to describe that as "cycle the clutch twice" is madness. Am I missing something?
henrikschroder 10y ago
I should probably have qualified my statement with an "over time, in real driving conditions". In a measured test, with a skilled driver, who does the right thing for the entirety of the test, it is most likely that he or she will be more efficient with a manual transmission than with an automatic. However, in real life, for real humans, over a longer period of time, the drivers with modern automatic transmissions will be more fuel efficient than drivers with similar cars and manual transmissions, because the automatic transmission is a reliable machine that will do the same thing, every time. It doesn't care if you had your morning coffee or not, if some asshole cut you off, or if you got distracted or bored or spaced out and forgot to change your gear to the right one. And, disregarding the disruption the EVs will be, technology constantly improves, while human skill is fairly constant, so it was just inevitable that automatic transmissions would one day overtake manual transmissions in terms of speed and efficiency. Arguing otherwise is just irrational nostalgia.
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
- kalleboo 10y ago
  I'd love to see some kind of study that went deep into how the results pan out over a certain population and why. My own anecdote is that I'm a better driver in a manual. I'm a lazy driver, and lazy in a manual means avoiding stopping/gear changes by anticipating green lights and so on. Being lazy in an automatic results in more stop and go for me because it's no more effort. I could be as efficient in an automatic, if I put in the effort (which I would probably do if I knew my numbers were going into a study).
  - henrikschroder 10y ago
    Many modern cars are completely drive-by-wire, and have a mode selector inbetween your controls and the car, which forces you into more fuel-efficient driving, e.g. ignoring if you push the speeder all the way down, and accelerating the car at an efficient pace instead. The more sensors and processing you get in a car, the better the car can be a this. Other modern cars have an "eco display" or similar, which gamifies the experience. My previous car had some progress bars for different aspects, and I spent several boring commutes trying to get to a perfect 100%. (I did it once, I was so happy! Usually only got it to 98% before I hit the city and got stuck in traffic again) Making automatics more efficient is a technological optimization problem. Making manuals more efficient is a human skill problem. I know which side I'd bet on in the long run. (Hint: Not the human)
Tomte 10y ago
Sure, for professional racing drivers. The vast majority, certainly >90%, of people who claim to be driving more efficiently manually are simply mistaken. It's mostly observation bias. They recognize those two situations a day where they really have the upper hand. For a second or two. They don't realize that in most other driving situations they don't even come close.
- amelius 10y ago
  > Sure, for professional racing drivers. But note that the transmission in F1 cars is semi-automatic [1] [1] https://www.formula1.com/en/championship/inside-f1/understanding-f1-racing/power-unit---gearbox.html https://www.formula1.com/en/championship/inside-f1/understan...
  - userbinator 10y ago
    The only "automatic" part of that transmission is the clutch. The driver still has to select the gear, and I think that's what the whole discussion here about manual vs. automatic is focusing on.
    - monk_e_boy 10y ago
      They drive to the beeps, so the computer is beeping in their ear when it is time to change. And they don't shift through neutral to select a gear. They may as well be automatic for all the input an F1 driver has
      - rlau26 10y ago
        The computer beeping is merely a reminder and I'm betting most drivers will even disregard it after they are familiar with the track they are on. Gear changes happen so often and so quickly that waiting for a computer to tell you when to shift is a sure sign of unfamiliarity with the track layout and it's also a hit to one's concentration (ex. if they're trying to pass the car ahead or block the one behind). Anyone that does any sort of track driving consistently should know what gear their car should be in for each corner long before a race.
vmasto 10y ago
Source please?
kyrra 10y ago
False. Maybe that used to be true, but it's been shifting. Automatics are more efficient than manuals. Examples: https://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/PowerSearch.do?action=noform&path=7&year=2016&make=Honda&model=Accord&srchtyp=ymm https://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/PowerSearch.do?action=noform... https://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/bymodel/2016_Mazda_6.shtml https://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/bymodel/2016_Mazda_6.shtml

fh973 10y ago

Eco driving is also about driving with foresight: don't accelerate if you likely have to stop soon anyway. Braking wastes the most gas.

csydas 10y ago
Yah, this can make an overwhelming difference in the long run. I used to drive semi-regularly between Wisconsin and Minnesota, a stretch of about 280 miles; others in my family would make the same trip with the same car during the same times of year, and my mileage per tank was always significantly different, and we couldn't figure out why initially. Turns out they used cruise control for most of the stretch, which I never used, and it was often the difference of 3-5 gallons over the course of the trip. Not a huge deal, but $4 gas did influence it a bit.
- kitd 10y ago
  For clarity, did cruise control produce better or worse mpg figures?
  - csydas 10y ago
    Ah, yeah, I see how what I wrote was not clear. Cruise control was significantly worse than driving it normally, at least when I was at the wheel. The route is a very hilly one, so I somewhat suspect it's that the cruise control was not very good at knowing when to accelerate and when to coast.
    - jessaustin 10y ago
      I find that the cruise control on a 2015 Hyundai (automatic transmission) always gets better mileage than I can without, even on hilly trips. (Where I live all trips are hilly.) I do help it out by shifting to neutral when on long downhill stretches.
    - omegaham 10y ago
      It's definitely that. My 2007 Civic doesn't account for incline when doing cruise control. It has some sort of lookup table that says, "When the owner sets me to 65 miles per hour, I go at this RPM." If I keep slowing down because I'm on a hill, it downshifts a gear and accelerates hard until the car goes back up to 65 miles per hour. Wash, rinse, repeat. I always disabled cruise control on hills because of it. My fiancee's 2014 Nissan Rogue accounts for hills with cruise control, and it never has these intervals.

lb1lf 10y ago

In Norway, too, we have the same restriction. I think I've driven a manual transmission car once or perhaps twice since my driver's test. As for eco-driving, I was told in no uncertain terms by the guy who examined me that if I tried to drive as eco-friendly as the official course material suggested, he'd fail me for being a hazard to other traffic.

_nalply 10y ago
That's because you'll prefer to run over pedestrians crossing the street so you don't have to break and waste kinetic energy. </irony>
- lb1lf 10y ago
  -That only works for children; adults have too large a moment of inertia for this technique to be effective. Seriously, his (valid, IMHO) point was that driving eco-friendly was all well and good when conditions allowed (A distinction not being made by the training manual) - but when interacting with other drivers, accelerating slowly, for instance, would often mean you could never (legally) enter a road where you're required to yield. The Norwegian definition of yield being that you should in no way impede on the operation of the car with right of way - in theory, if you're entering a road with right-of-way and a driver already on it has to ease up on the throttle pedal even for an instance to maintain safe distance, you're breaking the law.)
  - _nalply 10y ago
    Interesting. I'll have too look up what the Swiss road law says about this.
    - _nalply 10y ago
      I looked up. Art. 36 para. 4 SVG says: «The driver [...] is not allowed to impede other users of the road [...]», however I don't know what «impede» does exactly mean. Since I often experience that I have to adapt my speed because someone entered the road rather tightly, I think the Swiss are more lax about this. You only «impede» if the other one really has to hit the brake. Maybe. https://www.admin.ch/opc/de/classified-compilation/19580266/index.html https://www.admin.ch/opc/de/classified-compilation/19580266/... (German)

vmarsy 10y ago

>when automatic transmissions are consistently outperforming humans at fuel efficiency Do you have data to back this up? Unless you're driving a dual clutch "dry" transmission or a CVT, because of Physics, an automatic transmission will always be less efficient. The Automatic transmission Torque converter [1] will waste some of the energy provided by the engine, especially with city driving. Also, most automatic cars tend to shift gear up too early, and can't switch to gear n+2. Because of this, you spend more time accelerating to your cruise speed. It's well known that accelerating rather quickly to your cruise speed is the optimal strategy for fuel efficiency, hence the reason to switch from 3rd to 5th gear directly. With a manual, you can also disengage the clutch when you consider it safe (and not slowing down traffic) and you know you're going to have to stop at the red light. [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z5G2zQ_3xTc https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z5G2zQ_3xTc

sshanky 10y ago
In modern cars, disengaging the clutch (or using neutral) when coasting (toward a stop or down a hill) is less efficient than staying in gear. This is because it takes some fuel to keep the engine idling, where staying in gear allows the computer to completely cut fuel flow, as long as the forward motion is keeping the engine turning.
- baq 10y ago
  can confirm with anecdata: in my car the computer reports 0.0 fuel consumption when coasting in gear but non-zero when in neutral/clutch depressed.
  - ldev 10y ago
    Simple understanding on how a car works - "wheels turn the engine" when in gear, otherwise fuel is consumed when in neutral..
    - justin66 10y ago
      Not so simple. Until recently, a standard ICE couldn't stop injecting fuel while coasting (unless you turned the car off, which brings other problems...). I remember when I was learning to drive being taught about engine braking (with an automatic) and the tradeoff between using up the brakes or burning fuel.

fazzone 10y ago

>gear-shift indicator in the dash. My VW has this. It's useless, I never look at it. It is very simple and clearly intended only to give the best results on the controlled gas mileage testing - I believe that if a manual car has a gear-change indicator, the EPA test drivers are supposed to follow it. The advantage of a human selecting gears is that they can use more information than just the speed and engine rpm; for instance there is no point shifting into 6th gear if you see a big hill right in front of you. It also never indicates for the driver to skip a gear. Maybe you will save a few bucks on gas if you follow the indicator religiously but you'll probably break even after you have to replace your clutch early.

Tempest1981 10y ago
You say it's useless, but then say "maybe you will save a few bucks on gas if you follow the indicator". Isn't that the point? To teach/remind you how to save gas? I agree that it is imperfect, and imo annoying/distracting. But it may work for a large number of drivers, most of the time.
- fazzone 10y ago
  My point is that they far over-prioritized fuel economy. If you actually drive like that you will be spending a lot more time changing gears than necessary, and that almost any acceleration will require a downshift. I wouldn't recommend trying to stretch the gas mileage in the snow, for example, since you might need power to recover if you start to slide.
  - blub 10y ago
    Completely agree. Those indicators ignore that we can't accelerate as fast as a double-clutch automatic in case of emergency.
  - rini17 10y ago
    Overusing clutch is not such a big problem, but that it leads the driver to keep low rpm. Especially diesel engine is sensitive to that and can be damaged.

denisd 10y ago

> The silver lining is that electric cars will just decide this issue once and for all. They won't decide the issue as they have no transmission, they are option number 3 so to speak.

oblio 10y ago
That was probably his point :)
tempestn 10y ago
The issue will still be decided, in that it will no longer be an issue.

Annatar 10y ago

And since the car is most often better than you at knowing when you should shift gears, why have the manual transmission in the first place? From my empirical experiments, and from understanding how modern automatic transmissions work, the assertion above is incorrect, and here is why: a modern automatic transmission is controlled by firmware, a unikernel. The shift points and the shifting logic are based on the developers' very dim understanding of economy and of performance driving, and because the firmware is so shitty, there is often a significant latency involved - by the time the unikernel has managed to process all the inputs from all the sensors, compute a decision and acutally shift the gear, I've long since shifted with a manual. On top of that, the developers' opinions of what's acceptable and what makes sense are truly dim and utterly infuriating: as I drove the manumatic in hypermiling mode in which I normally drive a stick, the idiotic unikernel refused to upshift because the programmer thought that the gear would be too high and the RPM's too low, neither of which was the case. This was a 3 liter V6, so with plenty of low-end torque for the situation I was putting it through. Incensed, I repeated my experiment on other makes and models: the result was always the same. After so many years of automatic frustrations, I will never again own one: the day when I'm no longer able to buy a vehicle with a manual transmission is the day I take a bicycle or walk with the two legs nature gave me, or engineer my own car, and the car manufacturers can go to hell, because they sure won't be seeing any of my money ever again.

eveningcoffee 10y ago
Yeah, downvoted for honest and informed opinion. Unfortunately this is quite common in HN.
- viraptor 10y ago
  I downvoted you for random assumptions and insulting people you never talked to. > a modern automatic transmission is controlled by firmware, a unikernel Have you seen the source? If not, how do you know it's a unikernel? > The shift points and the shifting logic are based on the developers' very dim understanding of economy and of performance driving "dim understanding"? Do you have a reference for any of that? Why do you think it's developers, not mechanical engineers or engine testing that resulted in the shift threshold? > there is often a significant latency involved - by the time the unikernel has managed to process all the inputs from all the sensors Again, that's a heavy assumption unless you have a source for it. Also, from own experience in actually writing control software like that, real world sensors can be read tens/hundreds+ of times per second. But even with tiny 8K microprocessors you can process it more quickly. Mostly you sit in a tight loop and wait for new data. Processing it takes tiny fraction of the wait time. > On top of that, the developers' opinions of what's acceptable and what makes sense are truly dim and utterly infuriating Yeah... you're just throwing ad-hominem around. Please come post some sources which support your opinions.

VMG 10y ago

Very similar situation in Germany. I think the misinformation could be an historical artifact from times when automatic transmission technology was in early stages.

skrause 10y ago
I don't think there is a lot of misinformation in Germany. I'm German and I simply buy manual transmissions because they are a lot cheaper and I know a lot of people who are they same. I really would prefer an automatic transmission, but spend an extra 2000 euros for that bit of extra comfort? No thanks.
- VMG 10y ago
  I was referring to the misinformation about higher fuel efficiency of manual compared to automatic. I heard it too in driving school.
  - Swizec 10y ago
    The real question is: Will it save more money in gas than it costs extra to buy?
    - VMG 10y ago
      The rabbit hole goes deeper: how do you price in externalities like pollution for fuel? Or for an automatic transmission?
    - VMG 10y ago
      The rabbit hole goes deeper: how do you price in externalities like pollution for fuel? Or for an automatic transmission?

sandos 10y ago

Also, recently even in Sweden we passed the point when more than 50% of all new cars have an automatic gearbox! Manual gearboxes are not here to stay. Next car I'm getting, which is soon, is going to be an automatic if my plans turn out well. For some car models its very hard to find manual gearboxes, for example Kia Sorento manual is unusual. I assume its the more expensive car, the less likely it is to have a manual tranmission.

ehnto 10y ago

Automatics tend to be less fuel efficient, especially older cars. More recently, CVT style transmissions have been able to be more reasonable. But a typical automatic use much less direct ways to transfer the power, than a simple gear to gear linkage.

krzyk 10y ago

> when automatic transmissions are consistently outperforming humans at fuel efficiency Take a look at official car manufactures tables, in most cases automatic is less fuel efficient, cars where it is more efficient (at least according to the manufactures) are not as common.

eveningcoffee 10y ago

Restricted B category licence in Europe allows you to drive only cars with automatic gear transmissions. If you want to drive only such cars then you are not obliged to do full licence. But manual transmission cars are considerably cheaper and are more likely to be available (previously in the family, rental, friend etc), so it is your choice. Nobody is forcing you to do that. Automatic gear suggester makes the suggestions based on the revolutions and if you know what you are doing (takes a little practice and understanding), is always late. Manual transmission gives you more control over revolutions. This could also mean more fun driving. You can also use your engine for slowing down etc. The same could be done with robotic transmission, but that is usually more expensive to have and you do not get to control the clutch release. Besides, you gain better motor control of your body as a bonus.

eveningcoffee 10y ago
For the record: I do not think that drivers who prefer automatic gear box are somehow inferiour, everyone has its preferences. Just driving with the manual gear box car requires very specific additional skills and consensus in Europe is that these skills must be officially validated.

alkonaut 10y ago

Automatics used to drink 10% more until very recently. It's not strange that this is still taught. Even to this day it's probably hard to beat a good manual driver for eco perf, but perhaps average drivers do at least as well with a modern automatic.

akerro 10y ago

>that'll earn you a restriction on your license, barring you from driving a manual. It's probably fair, but almost everyone (myself included) chooses to practice in manuals It is fair. When you do motorcycle training for up-to 125cc, you can take a scooter which doesn't have gears, or motorcycle with gear. If you learn how to use gears you know how to ride a scooter, but if you take a scooter, you're not allowed to ride a motorcycle with gears. It's 100% fair, and it's logical.

ealexhudson 10y ago
This is only partly true. While it's correct for the A1 license (up to 125cc), if you have provisional + CBT you can do that training on an automatic bike and then go out and ride a geared bike for as long as you renew the CBT. Personally, I think it's a silly restriction. I learned gears on my own, if you know how to ride a bike it's not complicated to pick up - even in the CBT training they expect learners to pick it up in a half hour or so.
- peteretep 10y ago
  Very much worth noting that the CBT is a UK-only thing, and meaningless outside the UK.
  - akerro 10y ago
    Some EU countries don't require CBT-equivalent training to ride 125cc
barrkel 10y ago
In the UK at least, CBT is not geared vs automatic specific. If you do your basic training on a scooter, you can still ride a geared 125 unaccompanied on the road. The full test is specific though. The bigger issue with scooters vs geared bikes isn't the extra effort of using the gears, it's the much higher centre of gravity and (usually) wider turning circle of geared bikes that complicates manoeuvres. More forward planning is required to avoid tight turns that require high bank angle at low speed, turns that are easy on a scooter. The higher centre of gravity means it's trivial to drop the bike if braking while turning at slow speed. It's easy to hold up a scooter in the same situation.

cannam 10y ago

My driving instructor (in the UK) came from Sweden. He thought automatics were much safer and reckoned everyone should drive one, especially in the city, but he didn't like teaching them because they were so boring.

ollie87 10y ago
I'm in the UK and if I lived in a bigger city I'd have an auto, but since I live just outside a small city I keep my manual because I like the feeling of driving. For me driving and automatic is just not as fun.

ldev 10y ago

Same here in Lithuania - everyone learns and takes exams with manual transmission or they won't be legally allowed to drive stick. Same with "eco" driving - staying in higher RPMs or downshifting to overtake a car is a no no. But after passing driver's exam most people buy automatic - it's just so much more convenient in the city. I would rage in traffic if I had to do "clutch, neutral, cluth, first gear" mantra for 20 minutes to move a little in traffic - releasing break pedal to crawl a bit and then pressing it again to stop is a god send after driving manual for 6 years. :) Manual is good for 300+ bhp weekend cars, not daily use cars.

kazga 10y ago
downshifting to overtake a car is a no no. Interesting. German driving schools actually explicitly tell you to downshift before overtaking so that your acceleration is higher and you spend less time in the "wrong" lane.

saiya-jin 10y ago

wow, you are incorrect in almost every statement. I get it, you like easy driving without worrying about clutch and gears, but not everybody is like that. I would never want automatic transmission for my car, it's inferior, expensive, less fun and car has no way knowing details of road situation I am facing and choices I am about to make. And I am far from petrolhead person FYI. Another point - I don't know a single person who has automatic gearbox in their car, not even soccer moms. Automatic gearbox is faster, and probably better for complete novice drivers so they can focus more on situation on the road. That's it. It is more costly, will wear engine faster, removes some connection between driver and car (includes fun of driving, but not only). Plus it creates desperate and sometimes dangerous drivers when they sit in a car with manual, which will almost inevitably happen.

peteretep 10y ago
> it's inferior, expensive, less > fun and car has no way knowing > details of road situation I agree, and have believed those things since my mother (literally) taught me them! But I've never driven an automatic, and the small number of people I know in the UK who have switched to an automatic are never, ever going back. Food for thought.
- julian55 10y ago
  I'm one of that small number in the UK who drives an automatic. I used to drive a manual but more than 10 years ago switched to an automatic and I wouldn't want to switch back. To me driving is about getting from A to B with the least hassle and an automatic helps with that.
- eric_the_read 10y ago
  I just switched because I simply couldn't get the vehicle I needed (2016 Toyota Tacoma, 4 doors, 6' bed) with a manual transmission. I love the truck, but I still wish I could have had it with a manual. When my girls are old enough to drive, I hope I can still find a manual that's safe for them to learn on, just so they'll know what to do if they ever need to use one.
10y ago

hrrsn 10y ago

>You can choose to do your road test in an automatic, but that'll earn you a restriction on your license, barring you from driving a manual. Interesting. Here in New Zealand, once you move from your learners license (fully supervised driving) to restricted (ability to drive by yourself with conditions), if you sit the test in an automatic you get a condition for automatic only on your license. Once you sit your full license in an auto, that restriction disappears.

hrrsn 10y ago

mcv 10y ago

It's similar in Netherland. Manual transmission is standard, and automatic slightly looked down upon. But hybrids have to be automatic, so even a hardened driver like my wife had to accept automatic transmission. I always sucked at working the clutch, so automatic is probably better for me anyway.

blub 10y ago

When would skipping a gear be more "eco"? I find the shift indicator annoying. Depending on the car (e.g. my diesel 1.6L), it will probably be unreliable. One example is suggesting to shift up when driving on a light ramp when going over 2000rpm - this might be more eco, but it will put strain on the engine and also decrease your reaction time if you need to accelerate. The only useful thing that the indicator does convey is to keep it between ~1200 - 2000rpm and don't go over 130km/h if you want to save fuel. Interestingly my car model has the best fuel efficiency available only on manual, the same engine automatic uses slightly more fuel. But an automatic is generally safer (instant reaction time) and less troublesome (can't choke the engine). I don't think one has any chance of doing things like controlled drifts with an automatic.

rsp1984 10y ago

An often lost fact in automatic vs. stick-shift discussions is that in practice automatic transmission causes much heavier wear on the brakes of the car. This is because with a stick-shift you can just gear down when going downhill or before a foreseen stop and let the engine do most of the breaking for you. You then only use the brakes to bring the car to a full-stop on the last couple meters. This gets you much better mileage on your brake disks and pads. Can't do that with an automatic. Plus it's more fuel efficient.

cjrp 10y ago
I use engine braking in this way, but I've often wondered how much additional wear this is putting on the clutch. Given that brake pads/discs are cheap, and a clutch is not, maybe in the long run this doesn't actually work out cheaper?
- rhinoceraptor 10y ago
  If you rev match properly, the down shift should be just as smooth and quick as a normal up shift. E.G. you're in fourth gear at 50 MPH, you engage the clutch pedal, shift to third, tap the gas, and release the clutch pedal.
- dghughes 10y ago
  I'd be more worried about wear of the valve train. Brake pads are cheaper.
henrikschroder 10y ago
My previous car automatically engaged engine-breaking when going downhill, when it was appropriate to do so. I also had paddle-shifters if I wanted to do it myself. Your statement that cars with automatic transmissions can't engine brake is wrong.
joncalhoun 10y ago
Some new cars (and likely some older ones) offer paddle shifters and other ways to kinda pretend to be a manual. Eg most Subarus have this now. As someone who preferred cars with a manual transmission until recently, the paddle shifters are useless when accelerating (they just don't work well, and rarely feel "smooth"), but I really appreciate them for engine braking in the snow. I wonder if you could get similar brake-saving results if you got accustomed to switching to manual mode when braking and then switching back to drive regularly.

glenndebacker 10y ago

Here in Belgium the majority are the ones with a manual transmissions. The resell value of a car with an automatic shifter is also a lot less than the version with the manual shifter. But the car market is also changing. We are (regarding cars) a diesel country but as the government want to promote (as they are less polluting) petrol and electric cars, the taxes are becoming a lot higher for those who want to drive with diesel. If I'm not mistaken (not a car enthousiast) diesel cars with automatic shifters are rare. So when diesel is out, it may also change in this department.

bluetomcat 10y ago
> If I'm not mistaken (not a car enthousiast) diesel cars with automatic shifters are rare. Pretty much any European diesel executive car (Mercedes E-class, Audi A6, BMW 5 Series) is equipped with an automatic.

ebbv 10y ago

Manuals are better for fuel economy because they are more efficient. A torque converter loses more power as part of its design, it is unavoidable. Manual transmissions are also typically lighter which also results in an efficiency gain. If you prefer an auto that's fine, you're in a huge majority. But the idea that they are more efficient than manuals is factually wrong. If you run across an individual model of car where the EPA estimates give an advantage to the auto that is because of gearing and nothing else. That tells you the manual transmission was given much more aggressive or "sporty" gearing, probably starting with the final drive ratio. But that's a rare situation.

johngalt 10y ago

Governments standards change slower than technology. Automatics used to be slush boxes that robbed power while shifting at inappropriate times. Now they aren't. I love manuals, but I have to acknowledge modern automatic transmissions are very well executed.

Johnny_Brahms 10y ago

The driving schools are a huge lobby group in the laws regarding getting your drivers license. After I got my license, they successfully lobbied for a mandatory lesson for instructors (not too expensive, but still not a small income). Learning stick shift is harder, and takes a lot more practice. There is probably some economic interest in having people learn to drive stick. The only AT cars that I know have better fuel economy than good manual drivers are cars with CVT (continuously variable transmission). They are expensive and not something I would fix myself though :)

Grishnakh 10y ago

The love of manual transmissions isn't irrational, it's merely outdated. Manual transmissions were indeed more efficient than automatics up until about 10 years ago. Governments aren't exactly famous for being completely up-to-date on everything. The driving handbook you're complaining about was probably written 30 years ago... Back then, automatics really did suck badly. With modern cars, automatics do get better fuel economy than manuals according to all the official fuel-economy tests I've seen. One big difference between the two that I've noticed is that in automatics, they tend to have taller gearing overall, and cruise at lower rpms (because of a taller final gear). This is most likely because it's so fast and easy for an automatic to downshift when it needs to, unlike a stick; this is especially important when using cruise control on the highway. The main problem with automatics (but not DSGs like VWs have) is the inefficiency of the torque converter. But modern automatics have worked around that really well with TCs that lock up and unlock very readily, so they're really not much different than a manual with its slipping clutch. Luckily, here in the US, for all the things we do wrong with cars and drivers' licenses, there's no automatic restrictions I've ever heard about. I've heard of some states having such a thing on their licenses, but in reality I've never heard of them actually sticking that on someone's license if they took the driving test in an automatic. Almost anyone is allowed to jump in and drive a stick any time they want.

henrikschroder 10y ago
> The driving handbook you're complaining about was probably written 30 years ago No, it's continually updated, and featured lots of other modern facts about cars. For example, from a safety perspective, it urged people to stay the fuck away (maybe not using those words) from cars manufactured before 2000, because safety ratings increased a lot between 1990 and 2000, across the whole board. The eco-driving requirements are 10 years old, at the most, but the manual still states facts about automatic transmissions that were true 30 years ago. It's also important to remember that getting a license in European countries is generally a lot harder than in the US, so the eco-driving requirements results in people having to spend time learning the "theory" behind it, spending valuable driving lessons with an instructor to learn it, practice it, and getting evaluated on it during your final road test, and failing to drive "eco-friendly" will result in you failing the test. So it's a big deal, it affects a lot of people, and it's mostly been obsoleted by technology. The gains from forcing people to learn eco-driving are minuscule, and the whole piece of shit could be replaced with one simple sentence: "Please buy a modern car". The last 10-15 years have seen crazy efficiency gains, and buying a new car will do more for the environment than a lifetime of eco-driving in an older one. And that grinds my gears. :-) > Almost anyone is allowed to jump in and drive a stick any time they want. Fortunately that is pretty self-regulating, because it's incredibly hard to drive a manual if you haven't had practice and training. :-)

igfnow 10y ago

Tesla tried to have transmissions with multiple gears in their electric cars... thankfully it didn't work out the way they hoped.

bnolsen 10y ago

If you look at fuelly you may see different numbers. I know that for my last car: honda accord, and my current car: kia soul, manual transmissions both get noticeably better gas mileage even though the MSRP claims otherwise.

JasonInSeattle 10y ago

For me it's simple -- I really enjoy driving a manual and I mildly hate "driving" an automatic. I don't give a shit about fuel economy. Not to be rude but your tone makes it sound like you miss the point completely, which is fine, but it just makes me wonder why you would even care about having that restriction on your license to begin with...